Hi again!

I read almost everything on both forums about the Dreadnaught. I'm playing RAW as most as possible. But like a lot of people, I find the Dreadnaught a little weak. I'm just asking for a short list of any modifications you use to boost them a little bit.

Examples:

1. Cost 4
2. Move 2
3. Hit with 2 dice
4. etc.

Tks!

P.S.: I'm playing with both expansions.

I recommend against changing them at all. There are circumstances where they are valuable even in their raw condition and they are highly mold-able with tech advancements, particularly the new Duranium Armor.

However, if that isn't good enough, one 3rd party rule that I like allows them two rolls (to-hit) but only when they are undamaged. If they have sustained damage, they only get one roll (to-hit) until they are repaired. Often this is used in conjunction with a similar ruling for War Suns-- where they can sustain damage twice before being destroyed, but each hit the Sun has sustained gives it one-less die roll.

The fleet suply can be a reason to build them, since they are better than the cruiser...

The new tech is another good reason

They can bombard, this can be a diference betwen wining a invasion or not.

My group implemented the "Aimed Shot" rule for the Dreadnoughts to counter two issues we were having in the game. One that the dreadnought was too crappy for the cost and two the fact that the Warsuns where way too overwhelmingly good despite their high cost and the game kind of became a race for warsuns in which some races had a clear advantage. Though we have gone through a couple of renditions the final one we are using now is.

Aimed Shot: When a Dreadnought shoots, the shooting player can spend a strategy allocation counter to turn a shot into an aimed shot, in which case he gets to pick the target of a dreangouht hit instead of the defender.

All and all the effect has been good. Their is a nice healthy fear of dreads from Warsun dependend fleets and players have kind of been forced to diversify their fleets a great deal well as adding more momentum and functionality to command counters.

We haven't tested it that thoroughly but last game Warsuns became part of the fleet, rather than "THE" fleet.

I'd recommend playing the rules as they are. In the games i've played strategy, tactics and diplomacy have played the key roles in determining success. DNs are expensive but they are situational and can be worth buying in some situations. Often they are not bought because they're too expensive and slow, but as well as a defensive measure (when movement is not a serious issue) or to build them on the front line (as a prelude to an invasion of an adjacent system) they can be worth it. War Suns are powerful yes, but usually it takes a while to get them into play and they take up a lot of resources - we like them as they are.

In a recent game where i won as the Ghosts vs The Nekro and Arborec, The Arborec eventually got War Suns then eventually built one with a GF in a system adjacent to MR. The Nekro had copied the tech but never built one - always something more pressing to do. I had control of MR with my main fleet and i had raced to a 8-4-3 lead and knew if i could keep control of MR i would win because we were playing until a deadline. The Arborec built all 5 DNs and with the War Sun smashed my fleet, but i had enough GFs to survive the invasion attempt in that last turn.

The point is yes DNs are usually not worth the expenditure. I only built one in the above game early on as a defensive measure. But there are a number of factors already alluded to here and elsewhere that make them buyable including fleet supply, build limits, sustain damage etc.

I'm always more interested in reading about how players overcome 'issues' with tactics etc rather than going down the houserules road.

Personally, I've never found DNs to be underpowered in this game. All the balance complaints I've heard have basically amounted to "if it's not the BEST option then it's not worth building!" Which strikes me as a bit petulant, to say the least. All I can say is that if these people are tweaking DNs due to some perceived flaw, I wonder what other rules they're also tweaking that might be putting DNs at a disadvantage in the first place.

I'm not opposed to house rules in general, but I definitely do favour the idea of making sure something is broken (in your personal experience) before you start trying to fix it.

Steve-O said:

Agreed.

TemTemSefekh said:

+1

I agree that there is "on paper" nothing wrong with the Dreadnought, our house rule is designed more for the specific group of people we play with that result in certain predictable patterns after playing the game more times than I can even count. Another words our issues may not nescessarly be the same others have in their groups, though I have heard Dreadnoughts being brought up as an issue in a couple of my less frequented gaming groups.

For us the Dreadnought "Aimed Shot" rule was to curve the Warsun effect that was ever present in our game. The thing that always happened is that no matter how we set up the game the result was always the same, EVERYONE made a B line for Warsuns and the players who got it first had a clear advantage because they would immediatly go to work to ensure no one else got it by force. It was a tactic that was kind of becoming repetative and really didn't have much of a work around unless you teamed up. In essence it just all became very predictable and we wanted to create something that would push the games into different directions. Since we implemented very effective counters to Warsuns, the dependency on Warsuns is considerably less significant and the games have become more interesting.

Dreadnoughts themsleves have lots of uses and actually one thing we did a while back is remove the Warsun technology from the game all together, that in turn made the Dreadnought the best unit for waging war.

Im not a big fan of making too many changes to the game either, more often than not you fix one thing and break two others so it can be a vicious cycle but we have come up with some interesting house rules often less so because we needed to balance the game and more so just to change the game and kind of push players to try out different strategies and pull the reliance on old habits.

We play a lot of Twilight so .. ya little house rules like this I wouldn't say are nescessary but they can make the game more interesting if you play it a lot and find predictable patterns emerging.

I have not found war suns to be the end all tech. Yes they are powerful ships but you shouldn't be able to crush an opponent just because you have them.

In my experience big space battles quite often come down to who had better action cards, not who had warsuns. In a long war whoever has the better production rate wins as a lot of battles can end in mutual destruction.

Its strange to hear that everyone tries for warsuns as you really should be playing to your race and getting tech that augments the race.

Example: SAAR, SOL and YSSARIL requires 5 techs to get Warsuns while MUAAT needs 0 and JOL-NAR only needs 2. Does this mean MUAAT and JOL-NAAR always wins vs the other races?

So the problem is not with dreadnoughts or war suns its that the players are not trying different fleet compositions, tech strategies and harassment . By making dreadnoughts better you simply exacerbate the issues your having with warsuns and move it down to the dreadnought level.

Space battles are great fun in TI but in 4+ player games you quickly learn you need to be more flexible and diplomatic. Space battles are inevitable but the bark of your fleet will win more games than the bite.

Most of my games of TI are 3 player games but after playing more 4+ player games what I learned in them has made me a better player in 3 player as well.

apbevan said:

Its not really about crushing the opponent through war, I agree that its very rare that a war strategy actually works in the long term but it does allow you to hold key positions, as well as acting as a great deterant and that's usually the key in particular if you use things like Artifact planets, or draw some of the more war driven Shattered Empire public objectives. Generally the Warsun driven strategies are to force action as a distraction and to dwindle your opponents resources as he struggles to maintain enough defense to deal with Warsuns and thats hard to do if you don't have your own. Or alternatively with races like Jol-Nar for example allow you the comfort of turns rolling by untouched which with races like the Jol-Nar is its own reward. So no its not an "I Win Button", but strictly speaking winning without Warsuns in a game where your opponents have them puts you at enough of a disadvantage to force your hand and get your own, and thats typically the response we have at our table. It might not be entirely logical, but group dynamic is group dynamic.

In terms of do Muaat and Jol-Nar tend to win more often because of their easier access to Warsuns, actually I would say thats quite true. They are considered to be two of the top races, not just because of their access to Warsuns of course but do the effects Warsuns have on the tactical and strategic situations in the game. For the Muaat they don't have to worry about getting the tech so they can focus on other strategies right out of the gate. For the Jol-Nar anyway you can stall and prolong peace is a big advantage for you as you gain techs. Yssaril aside who have a number of other major advantages that give them big enough benefits to overcome the delayed arrival of Warsuns, races like Saar and Sol tend to win considerably less often .

Naturally their are a lot more factors involved here, TI3 is a very complex game so things like galaxy setup, which strategy cards you use, which races are in play and what other game variants you use will make Warsuns more or less advantages, but I don't think its unreasonable to say if you have Warsuns and no one else does your tactical options greatly increase.

The B line strategy towards Warsuns for us at least kind of became the status que, which is why we created the houserule. I agree with you that their are plenty of other strategies (depending on so many variables one could probobly write a book on the subject) that work, but you simply can't beat the tactical advantages and threat factor of two Warsuns in key positions, as you said their bark is often enough of an advantage that you may never even need to use them. But when your facing even odds with everyone holding the same advantage, on the board the attrision of the tactical situation pushes players to seek alternative strategies to war. Its kind of like having nuclear weapons, you don't need to use them for them to have a significant effect on the overall strategy of the game.

I agree that players who are just getting into Twilight should be wary of changing the rules before giving the game a good, long honest try. But if you are finding issues like we have, altering Dreadnoughts in this way has been very effective for us and I would recommend trying it.

Something that was drummed into us though playing is that TI is a points-game, not a war-game. If you focus on warfare at the cost of completing objectives then you will lose. A war sun could be seen as a heavy investment when compared to meeting the requirements of a secret objective, say.

Treguard said:

Absolutly, the first sentence after I open the box as I educate new players is "I know this looks like a war game, but its not, its a game all about victory points" But that said, if a player is unprepared for war, how many victory points is irrelevant.

The only thing we do to make them a bit stronger is we will play with 2 attacks instead of 1. If they are damaged it is reduced to 1. If a war sun is damaged they also suffer a reduced attack of 2. We also make them take 2 spaces when building Dreads and 3 spaces for Warsuns. With the new flagships, we no longer do it, because it throws of the flagship value. Keep everything else the same you dont want them to be too powerful of some of the races would too tough.

Treguard said:

THIS wins me games. I have about an 80% win rate with my group. They play a war game, I play for VP's.

I've tried pounding it in their heads, "If your doing something in the game that won't directly get you VP's at some point in the future, then your going to lose"

Treguard said:

"If your doing something in the game that won't directly get you VP's at some point in the future, then your going to lose"

The games I have experienced makes me agree with this. In Addition, even for war there is not just War Suns or Dreadnaughts. For L1Z1X Dreadnaughts are a very good option, since they get them cheaper, hit better and start with stasis capsules. As for the Mentak, I believe cruiser are a better choice. They cost only 2 and with annother technology, they hit on 6 and get a preemptive strike. So they are, cheaper, faster and get a hit before the real battle starts. SO I believe that every race should build the units fit for them.

War Suns are very expensive and without fighters as shields I think they often are not worth 12 resources. In my games, War Suns usually appeared on the board after a player already stands out on the ohers by resources, witch makes him dangerous with or without a War Sun, but unless that player focused on VP, he lost anyway.

First of all, I agree with all posts that reinforces that VPs win games, not space battles. That being said, I've been playing with the alternative objectives from SE plus preliminary objectives and artifacts lately, and I did noticed that I had to be slightly more aggressive to get these coveted VPs. In my last game, my preliminary + secret + 4 out of 10 public objectives were battle-oriented, while 3 other were "system control" (which ultimately would lead to battles, and same applies to artifacts).

Before that I didn't see anything particularly wrong with DNs, since I was using them mostly to intimidate opponents as a defensive measure. Now that I have to be more aggressive, I think that for its cost DNs suffers from lack of focus: although they hit hard and have bombardment, they lack mobility to be used effectively on the offensive; by the time you get them on the front lines, the opponents had enough time to prepare. On the deffensive side, they usually have to be paired with Destroyers for the AFB.

My suggestion (from the top of my head, without ANY testing) is to give them AFB to effectively turn them into jacks-of-all-trades (maybe that would make them slightly overpowered in the hands of L1z1x).

If Dreadnoughts didn't lack mobility why would anyone build cruisers? Any race that has an Admiral should build a dreadnought as a top priority.

I don't think Dreadnaughts lack focus. They have a good attack value, they have sustain damage, they start as the biggest ship on the block and only get better with tech(including movement). Their focus of being a war vessel seems pretty focused to me.

What Dreadnoughts are not is a jack of all trades versatile ship, TI doesn't have any ships like that.

I love Dreadnoughts for what they are. I use them in times of war or to anchor a system elswise it would be better to spend the resources doing something else.

Unless you play flanking speed/warfare or research type 4 drives that turn its pretty hard to surprise an enemy with an attack he couldn't see coming. How well they can prepare has more to do with resources/build capacity than anything you can do.

I thought the DN debate was over?

Anyway if we ever play a game together please by all means build lots of DNs.

I like to win.

Bill

I believe the DN should roll 2 dice, if undamaged (and only 1 die if damaged) and I support this House Rule. To me, this is just a logical extension of the cost versus the benefits of the DN in line with the progression from CA with 1 die hitting on a "7" to a WS rolling 3 dice hitting on "3's." Many others have posted that TI3-SE-SotT is indeed not a wargame, but an economic, political game where warfare is an element, but generally not the decisive one. Obviously, it is a game of achieving victory points. Our group has played multiple games with and without the 2xd10 DN. For me the 2xd10 DN is just a personal preference that makes the game more enjoyable, as I feel it is just more logical that the DN ought to roll 2 dice when undamaged, not 1. It is noteworthy IMHO, that after 18+ games with our group, the L1Z1X Mindnet have yet to win a game, even when we have played with the 2xd10 DN, this House Rule is not a "game breaker," it just makes the DN worth the cost. Further, if all players gain the same benefit, then to me it is not very controversial.

bnorton916 said:

Agreed. This merely reinforces the huge gap between inexperienced and experienced players in playstyle; at the wiki, this debate was done and done years back, yet here it is recurring and still spawns discussion. Note that this is not meant as forumbashing or bashing people coming here; it's only natural that the official forum garners alot of attention from new people coming to the game. It's merely meant as testimony to the great tactical depth that Twilight Imperium possess.

That being said, Dreadnaughts are a terrible unit RAW. Yes, you build ONE if you got an Admiral. You will maybe build more if **** has hit the proverbial fan AND you're about to lose to an enemy that does NOT rely on fighters. Or, pray tell it isn't the case, you're such a terrible player that couldn't think two steps ahead and is sitting ducks on 2-3 Fleet Supply with an enemy right outside your homesystem.

Dreadnaughts are nigh-useless for offence, too reliant on too many technologies, and too tactically limited.

Iorveth said:

I disagree Dreadnoughts are not useless for offence.

Yes fighters are great and any serious fleet needs them but they also need dreadnoughts or warsuns as relying on just fighters is going to bite you at a critical moment.

If your talking about skirmish/boarder disputes yes dreadnoughts are too slow and expensive but but late game battles need a good mix of attack and fodder. It is easier to build dreadnoughts quickly if you have the resources compared to fighter fleets which take many turns to rebuild regardless of resources which makes dreadnoughts a great late game addition to your fleets.

apbevan said:

If you have Type IV Drive, yes. However, if not then Dreads are nigh worthless for offence as you can't replenish an offensive fleet nearly as fast with Dreads as you'd be able to with Cruisers and Destroyers. Arguably, provided War Suns aren't thrown into the mix, you'd be better off running with XRD carriers and a healthy mix of Destroyers, perhaps with a single cruiser added for some offensive minelaying. The Dread's problem is that it doesn't fulfill any role or niche offensively. It's outright a liability against fighter swarms compared to a Destroyer which on average has 1½ guaranteed pre-combat hit with ADT, and against enemy fleets mainly comprised of capital ships, well.... your fighters should handle that, provided they don't have a truckload of ADT destroyers.

Destroyers + XRD carriers as well as pure destroyer fleets provide much, much greater flexibility and tactical opportunities for a much, much cheaper cost than outfitting several Dreadnaughts with technologies and then getting them rolling. But as someone else said in this thread then by all means, I'd love to end up in any game with a dreadnaught-oriented player; it'd make any victory alot easier.